Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Manoj – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1630 of 2015
With
Prakash – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1631 of 2015
Decided On : 13-02-2026
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – Section 3 read with Section 7 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 245 – Black-marketing of Cement – Violation of Maharashtra Cement (Licensing and Control) Order, 1973 – Conviction and sentence – Where a statutory provision is unconditionally omitted without a saving clause, all proceedings founded upon such provision must lapse – By notification dated 07.08.1990, delegation of powers to State Government to regulate retail distribution of cement through licenses or permit was expressly rescinded – As a result, State-level licensing and regulatory controls over cement distribution also stood withdrawn – On the date of commission of offence, neither Cement Control Order, 1967 nor Maharashtra State licensing regime under 1973 Order operated so as to attract penal consequences under Section 7 of E.C. Act – Prosecution has failed to place on record any subsisting control order, notification, or statutory restriction in force on relevant date, violation of which could constitute offence under Section 3 of E.C. Act – Prosecution launched against appellants under E.C. Act was wholly misconceived – Both Trial Court and High Court failed to examine legal effect of decontrol and proceeded solely on appreciation of evidence, ignoring absence of a statutory foundation for offence – Such approach strikes at root of conviction and renders the same unsustainable in law – In a given case, where facts proved disclose commission of a minor offence, Trial Court is empowered under Section 222 of Cr.P.C. (Section 245 of BNSS) to record conviction for such minor offence even in absence of specific charge – Prosecution did not culminate in any such exercise, nor can High Court, in appeal against conviction under a distinct statutory offence, substitute conviction by invoking provisions of IPC for first time – Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Courts below set aside. (Paras 15.5, 16, 17, 18, 26, 27 and 28)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were tried and convicted for offences punishable under Section 3 read with Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- – High Court dismissed appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by trial Court.
Findings of Court:
The bail bonds, if any, executed by appellants shall stand cancelled and fine amount, if paid, shall be refunded to them.
Result : Criminal Appeals allowed.
आपका तर्क यह हो सकता है कि जब किसी आवश्यक वस्तु जैसे सीमेंट के नियंत्रण या विनियमन से संबंधित कानून को बिना किसी संरक्षण क्लॉज के बिना रद्द कर दिया जाता है, तो उस कानून के तहत की गई सभी कानूनी कार्रवाई स्वतः ही समाप्त हो जाती है। (!) यदि उस समय कोई प्रभावी आदेश या नियम लागू नहीं होता है, तो उस कानून के आधार पर अभियोजन या कोई भी कानूनी कार्यवाही मान्य नहीं हो सकती है। इस प्रकार, कानून का रद्द होना या समाप्त होना अभियोजन की वैधता को समाप्त कर देता है, और ऐसे में अभियोग का संचालन असंवैधानिक और अवैध माना जाएगा।
JUDGMENT :
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
1. The appellants herein, Manoj (A1) and Prakash (A2), who are related to each other as nephew and uncle, were tried and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 19551[For short, “E.C. Act”] and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month, by judgment dated 03.04.2000 passed by the Special Judge, Aurangabad2[Hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”] in Special Case No. 22 of 1994. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants preferred Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 2000 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad3[Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”]. The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Hence, the present criminal appeals.
2. The prosecution case is that the Public Works Department4[For short, “PWD”] of the State Government had awarded the work of construction of a Khar passage in cement concrete along the Kannad – Bahirgaon Road, Aurangabad to Bharat Majdoor Credit Cooperative Society. After obtaining the work order, the Chairman of the said Society, Madhukar (A3) is alleged to have sublet the work to Prakash Vyenkatrao (A4). At the relevant time, Sadashiv (A5) and one more accused (A6) were working as peons in the PWD godown at Aurangabad.
3. As per the terms of the contract, the PWD was required to supply 850 bags of cement from Government quota to the contractor (A3) for execution of the work. Accordingly, the Deputy Engineer of PWD, Ramesh Jaiswal (P.W.8) issued the first indent for supply of 400 bags of cement in the first week of March 1994. However, according to the prosecution, the second indent of 400 bags of cement released from the PWD godown did not reach the work site.
4. It is further alleged that on 24.03.1994, P.S.I. Kadam (P.W.2) of Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad received secret information that two trucks carrying Government quota cement were stationed near Hari Masjid at Mondha, Aurangabad and that the cement bags were being unloaded at Mistri Traders with the intention of black-marketing them. Acting on the said information, P.S.I. Kadam conducted a raid and intercepted two trucks bearing registration Nos. MHF-6625 and MHB-5061 which were found parked on the road between two shops, namely, Mistri Traders and Maharashtra Agro Industries, allegedly belonging to the appellants.
5. During the raid, the appellants were allegedly found in possession of 365 bags of cement of Government quota. The remaining 25 bags of cement were allegedly recovered on 28.04.1994 from the shop of Maharashtra Agro Industries. During investigation, it was further alleged that Sadashiv (A5) had delivered the cement bags to the appellants and had received 10 bags of cement as commission.
6. P.S.I. Kadam lodged a complaint with Kranti Chowk Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the E.C. Act against the appellants and four other accused persons. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed and the case was taken on file as Special Case No. 22 of 1994.
7. During trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses and relied upon oral and documentary evidence as well as material objects. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 for the offences under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the E.C. Act and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Accused Nos. 4 and 6 were acquitted of the charges.
8. The conviction and sentence so recorded by the trial Court were affirmed by the High Court in the appeal filed by the appellants. Consequently, the appellants have approached this Court by way of the
Black-marketing of Cement – Where a statutory provision is unconditionally omitted without a saving clause, all proceedings founded upon such provision must lapse.
The judgment established that the failure to maintain the stock register was not justified by the appellant's illness, and the prosecution failed to prove intentional contravention of the law. Additi....
Conviction Set aside - Search and Seizure - Raid in cement godown - Fact of 450 bags of cement which were seized from two godowns were corroborated by prosecution witnesses as such factum of seizure ....
Detention orders must be based on comprehensive assessments of all material facts; failure to consider vital evidence renders them void.
A company must be arraigned as an accused before its officers can be held vicariously liable under section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Strict adherence to statutory requirements under the Essential Commodities Act is essential for lawful operation, and failure to comply can lead to conviction.
The court emphasized the necessity of adjudicating allegations of arbitrary government actions to uphold public trust and the rule of law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that 'rice' is considered an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and is subject to seizure and confiscation under Sectio....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
